Moved from General Questions to Elections.
samclem, Moderator
I don’t see why not. They have nothing to gain by governing in a bipartisan fashion.
Their base is so anti-democrat and anti-Obama that any sort of cooperation will result in a primary from the right. Dick Lugar comes up as an example of what happens if a republican is seen as ‘helpful’ to helping the democrats pass legislation. So was Arlen Specter (he had to switch parties because he knew he’d lose a primary from the right after he supported the stimulus).
Plus if a democratic president turns the country around, he can run on that record. There is no incentive for them to help make things work.
If Obama wins, it wouldn’t matter as much, since they wouldn’t have enough to overturn his veto.
If Romney won, they’d do it in a heartbeat. The first time the Democrats tried to filibuster a Romney Supreme Court nominee, bang, the rules would change and the filibuster would be gone.
A lot depends on what exactly Republicans win in the election. If they win the Congress, then by definition they won’t be obstructing anything. They’ll be passing legislation and it will be up to the President to obstruct.
If they hold the House and fail to win the Senate, then obstruction is untenable. In the context of the 2010 election, obstruction was sensible given the mandate Republicans got in that election: stop the Democrats. A divided result in 2012 would send a different message.
Depends on the disrict, I suppose.
But when they lose the General Election, this will stop very soon.
I see no reason to believe Obama won’t continue to advance extremely stupid and damaging policies if he wins a second term, so I see no reason to believe that the Republicans won’t continue to thwart his efforts to fuck things up.
Depends on how you go about it. Tom Coburn has serious cred, as does Bob Corker. They can get away with it. Lindsey Graham has a reputation of rhetorically attacking his own base, so Tea Partiers are less forgiving of him.
I agree with this, sort of. IF Republicans at least control the House and the President doesn’t change course, there isn’t going to be much room for agreement.
But I think that this being his last election, he’ll want a legacy. In the runup to an election, it’s all well and good to want to draw contrasts, to stand on principle. But the incentives for both sides point to compromise if the status quo is maintained after the election. Obama will want his place in history assured and Republicans will want to get some things on their own agenda done over the next four years, like tax reform and regulatory form, things Obama supports in theory but where specifics have to be compromised on.
“After”? You really are awfully sure of yourself, aren’t you? But continue to think that, if you must.
That usually means you don’t understand their premises.
We don’t need to TRY. He and the rest of you leftists are doing that quite well all by yourselves. And you really think WE are wrecking OUR brand? What do you think the 2010 elections were all about?
THat’s the fundamental problem with their perceptions. They got beat and they just assume it meant nothing.
I think the more important question is, if Republicans do sweep everything, win the White House and the Senate, will Democrats reflect on what they did wrong, or will they just assume the public is too stupid to appreciate them and wait for demographic change to sweep them back into power?(which won’t happen).
He has certainly been a liar and an ass, most politicians are, but I’d rather see poor kids in Mississippi have health care and school lunches than the wealthy keep their Bush tax cuts.
Why do you hate America?
Remember SENATOR Obama? He spent 4 years in the U.S. Congress voting present while the sub-prime mortgage bubble grew. But what could a U.S. Senator do? After all, they’re only U.S. Senators???
Because A Horse With No Name is a really, really stupid song.
Given that rescinding the tax cuts for the wealthy doesn’t raise much revenue, and given your concern for poor kids without health care, wouldn’t you also support rescinding the middle class Bush tax cuts?
[quote=“adaher, post:56, topic:632266”]
Given that rescinding the tax cuts for the wealthy doesn’t raise much revenue, …/QUOTE]
Cite?
$700 billion over ten years as opposed to $4 trillion if we repeal the Bush tax cuts for the middle class as well.
I mean, if you care about health care that much, the only answer is to let all the Bush tax cuts expire.
Have you a link to some numbers? I’d play more taxes for kids to eat and have health care. I’d like to compare who pays what sort or percentage, and who actually pays.
I happen to be perfectly fine with letting all the Bush tax cuts expire. Ending them for the rich only is also just fine, the fact that this alone wouldn’t balance the budget doesn’t bother me. Turning off the light when I leave the room doesn’t entirely eliminate my electric bill, but I still do it.
Let’s go back in history. It’s early 2009, the Republicans lost massively, giving up the White House and are the minority in the House and Senate. Did they say “Gee, we’ve got to change”? Nope, they doubled down on the crazy and decided that their best bet was to say no to everything, the health of the nation be damned. In 2010 they exploited latent white racism and added in hysteria about what was essentially their own health care plan from the Clinton era and took back the House. Now Democrats are supposed to say, “Oh gee wilikers, the Republicans are right and we’re wrong”? I don’t think so.
So in 2013, assuming the Democrats retain the White House and Senate and make inroads if not take over the House, do I think Republicans are going to all of a sudden put country ahead of party? Not on your nellie.